It's been fascinating watching so many VC types ignore so many red flags just because some of Elon's early actions validated their priors (e.g. tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff).
I think the next wave of interesting questions is around the extent to which Musk contributed the apparent successes, SpaceX and Tesla. We won't know for a long time, as a lot of the people in the know have a strong incentive to keep quiet. But one possible explanation is that he is good at PR and using hype to raise money, but is not a competent manager without help. Consider, for example, this bit from someone who says they were a SpaceX intern: https://www.tumblr.com/numberonecatwinner/701567544684855296...
I asked a former SpaceX person about that and was told it seemed right, that SpaceX worked because everybody believed in the mission and worked hard at managing Elon so that they could get the actual work done.
[1] I incorrectly thought he was fired by the board from Zip2, but they just refused to make him CEO. Thanks to dontknowwhyihn for the correction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34042958
What they have in common is that they have fame and money, and it turns out you can do a lot with that.
Probably that estimate would be lower now, given the market downturn. But clearly she’s well on her way to building up a competitor to the established brands.
And while it's true that VSCO's current market cap is 3 billion, at the time that Rihanna made her comment VSCO's market cap was 5-6 billion. It has dropped significantly in recent months.
Also, don't forget that Rihanna has something the top three beauty supply companies don't have - a growing brand. That has a massive impact on market cap.
Elon Musk was barely more than a nobody when he got involved with Tesla and started SpaceX.
Fenty was founded after Rihanna had scored countless hits and was basically a household name.
He was extremely wealthy and had a lot of connections from buying his way into other companies. He was not yet a household name/ global celebrity, only one in more niche (but very powerful) circles, that changed soon after.
If you can reasonably self-fund a startup with employees for a while, you are not a nobody and you are likely far more powerful than 95% of the population. You can literally dictate what other human beings do for 40 hours a week. That's not being a nobody...
> Rihanna is now worth $1.7 billion, Forbes estimates—making her the wealthiest female musician in the world and second only to Oprah Winfrey as the richest female entertainer. But it’s not her music that’s made her so wealthy. The bulk of her fortune (an estimated $1.4 billion) comes from the value of Fenty Beauty, of which Forbes can now confirm she owns 50%. Much of the rest lies in her stake in her lingerie company, Savage x Fenty, worth an estimated $270 million, and her earnings from her career as a chart-topping musician and actress.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2021/08/04/fentys-fo...
She is a business mogul in the best sense of the word, just in industries far away from here.
I know who Musk is, I know what he does, I know about the companies he founded, I know what he looks like. All I know of Rihanna is that she is a pop star.
Celebrity is very contextual.
Hence celebrities getting married and divorced every three weeks, it keeps them in the news.
His successes just delivered what the market demanded but established powers did not want to pursue for one reason or another. He knows to outsource actual work to experts and offers them attention which is easier due to his interest in tech/science. Of course, he sees them as tools and he doesn't need to care about labor laws but that's a part of the longer list of his flaws and mistakes.
After Tesla/SpaceX took off, it has been as you described.
Rihanna imo is very savvy and the Fenty brand was a very successful business, involving a couple pivots from fashion to more lingerie and beauty. The big Savage x Fenty musical production event every year is a smart move that leverages her music industry connections and draws lots of interest and new customers.
Arguably she is doing better than Musk atm, given that he started life with a huge capital advantage and is likely losing big on Twitter right now (as well as tanking his public image).
Musk example[1] of this, he sold 1 million USD worth of perfume with smell of burnt hair in a few hours.
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/oddly-enough/elon-musk-sel...
The problem here is overconfidence / blind spots. Twitter is a different type of business. Musk looks to be doing a Mike Jordan or a Shaq. Basketball isn't baseball, nor is it rapping. Both of them recovered from those bad decisions. Will Musk? Time will tell.
There's some evidence Musk was like this all along, but it is a lot harder to learn humility when you're doing well.
In contrast, check out the Tom Mueller interview about Elon Musk and "face shut off". This feature is one of the top reasons why the SpaceX Merlin rocket engine is such a great engine. Mueller thought it would be very hard to get it to work in a large engine and he was right. They blew up hundreds of engines and a bunch of test stands. But Musk was supportive the whole time. That's a big deal, and what you want from a CEO during development.
But "better than Bezos running a rocket company" is a pretty low bar to hurdle.
Tory Bruno at ULA and Peter Beck at Rocket Lab from the outside appear to be outstanding CEO's. But they've been starved for resources for different reasons. What could they have done with the resources that Musk & Bezos brought to their companies?
Rocket Lab in particular is one of the companies that could challenge SpaceX's dominance.
This sort-of implies that BO was functional prior to that incident.
BO was founded in 2000. By 2017, they had existed for 17 years without reaching the orbit. (Which SpaceX managed in 6 years, Astra managed in 17 years, RocketLab in 12 years).
It seems to me that BO is just continuing to be an expensive failure, which, unlike all the other failed space startups, keeps dragging itself on, because it can rely on basically unlimited funding.
Expecting them to reach orbit as quickly as SpaceX or Rocket Lab is unfair since SpaceX & Rocket Lab had an orbital rocket as their first product, and Blue Origin didn't.
It's unfair to compare everybody to SpaceX -- their success is exceptional. Pre-2017 Blue Origin wasn't as functional as SpaceX but I wouldn't call them dysfunctional. Post-2017 Blue Origin is dysfunctional.
This is all based on heresay, so take from it what you will.
That said, they are backed by Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, so I think it is fair to expect some real achievements from them.
It almost seems a dream to a space nerd. A O'Neill protoge with a long term vision of "moving heavy industry into space to enable the Earth to turn into a garden planet" and uninterested in short term profits investing a billion dollars a year to pursue that vision.
They then successfully identified the first two steps along that road. 1: dramatically reduce the price of access to space through reusability. 2: return to the moon for exploration on the path to exploiting its resources to enable the space industry that's the long term goal. 3: LEO space station.
That SpaceX beat them to the first two goals should be cause for celebration and partnership and a move on to the next goal. Instead they've been fighting SpaceX with dirty tricks that luckily have failed.
Then there's China. Tesla's 25% yearly revenue after being the first US company to launch without being 50% hand-in-hand with a local business. He agreed to teach the locals his methods, and they now sell straight-up copies at half the price. lol
I'm sorry but this whole thing is one big joke.
https://www.amazon.com/Never-Thought-That-Way-Conversations/...
They might just be evil.
I just disagree with people's opinions on certain things. And if I frequently disagree with someone enough, then I just quietly stop paying any attention to what they say.
- the ability to explain why you think a certain way or did something (i.e. when you ask a child why they threw a glass they'll say "I don't know"
- the speed at which you learn/process new information
- the ability to understand your emotions and the level of control you have over them
- your willing to engage in debate
- how inquisitive you are
Further, I think “somebody that spends an extraordinary amount of money to become admin on a forum (one of the worst jobs on earth)” qualifies as “a stupid person” well before “being incredibly, laughably, hilariously inept at being a forum admin” even gets factored into the “How stupid can a person be?” equation.
and also learnt many many people do not bother with thinking, and just throw crap out - due to their immediate emotions
TV debate long ago decided that every complex human concern can be profitably reduced to a crass binary which can be argued about in front of a camera for the audience's thumbs up or down.
Social media democratised this decerebrate approach. A thumbs up or down from your tribe. Mastodon, Post.news et al only replicate the Twitter model.
It doesn't matter which platform PG, or anyone else, is on. They're all worthless distraction. Fiddling while Rome burns etc.
Speaking only for myself, but I'd honestly contest that.
The only thing that will definitely hold true is that there is an audience of tens of millions of Americans who feel mocked by "the Elites." They will shower adoration on anyone with Elite creds - be it academic, media, or business - who tells them there really is a conspiracy to oppress them and that they're the straight shooter who will go to battle for them. That is a very seductive amount of positive feedback when the other things you're doing aren't home runs.
They simply were too slow in implementing them. Some of them eg. payments are due to all of the regulatory challenges that Twitter faces as a top tier social network. Others are just incompetence eg. not doing more with Vine.
They needed a better executor. Problem is Musk immediately fired everyone. And has constantly underestimated the complexity of the system. So bit hard to see how they were ever going to do better as Twitter 2.0.
They are well within their rights to do so, but that's the exact opposite of competing purely in the market of ideas.
1. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/social-platfo...
It doesn't inspire confidence in that their previous stance was truly motivated by their love of the unrestricted diffusion of ideas.
Every time someone mentions this I ask for examples, and generally all I ever receive in reply are examples of people disagreeing with them. I begin to think that those who shout about 'abuse' are incensed that those they formerly silenced by bending the rules are now using those rules against them, particularly to voice their legitimate opinions, and they're using their institutional power elsewhere to try to tank Twitter as a result.
In short: I know full well that this has nothing to do with free speech arguments and everything to do with institutional actors being incensed that they can't use Twitter as their own propaganda institution anymore. I won't pretend that Elon is a friend of the proletariat, but I'm also not going to pretend that those opposing him somehow are either. This is a slap fight between two groups of bourgeoisie, and petit bourgeoisie actors are trying to convince everyone else it's some sort of fight for liberty, justice, mom and apple pie. Utter nonsense.
In the end, some of you are going to have to accustom yourselves to the idea that you are not gatekeepers of public forums, the people have interests that do not coincide with your own, and no amount of force or fraud is going to change that. Don't like it? Learn to code, I guess.
Then you haven't been watching harassment on trans and other LGBT people, being told to die in horrible ways (I'm sure you can point to other high-profile people getting that kind of threats, but this one gets such abuse merely for existing).
Fully agree that having public forums gatekeeped by centralized actors deciding what you can communicate is worrisome; we should get distributed ways to announce the existence of your personal publications to people that may be interested in its subject - like like the Usenet newsgroups of old (which are still in operation, but are not known to the general public).
I mean. I still think he is trying to do that. Is he succeeding? I don’t think so.
If it all hits the ground and twitter is no more a going concern will he claim that was his plan all along? Probably. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Even on the day he offered to buy twitter he was offering more money than the stock was worth. That is only rational if you believe you have a plan to run it better.
According to reports he is spending a lot of his time managing twitter in quite a hands-on way. Do you think he is not trying to make it better in his own mind?
I think it's a case of the gambler having enough money to buy the casino.
I was one of them. But slowly we saw him fuck it up, and then double down. Twitter is toast unless Elon is dumped by his investors
Because otherwise I can not understand the logic behind defending Musk’s reign as CEO. Ignoring the chaotic policy changes what bothers me is the treatment of Twitter’s employees. Nobody should ever have to leave their house because of death threats. And surely Parag/Jack should be ultimately held accountable for what happened at the company under their reign.
And you use a throwaway.
[1] And for the record I think pg indeed ignored WAY too many red flags for WAY too long in this particular case.
If I was a friend of his, I'd suggest that it's a good chance to think about why he was convinced Elon would do well and adjust as necessary, but it's also quite possible that he doesn't feel like he's obliged to do that self-examination in public. And he's not.
That is still a valid point tho. The thing is, we're not going to know who is right or wrong until it all plays out. And considering there are billions on the lines and Musk plays fast and loose with the rules, he's probably going to come out of the otherside better for it.
> It's been fascinating watching so many VC types ignore so many red flags just because some of Elon's early actions validated their priors (e.g. tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff).
Again it's still a valid point. Tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff, that's why they're ALL doing it.
People can be right and still do dumb jackass moves.
Called this a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33659020
"The emperors have no clothes"
This is the first time I've seen the finger of accusation point to Paul Graham for excessively blocking. Is it possible the @fennecsound account participated in previous harassment and the target doesn't wish to endure more low-quality interactions?
My expectation is: HN folks, being generally sensitive souls, would have spoken up vocally on this site if it were a common ocurrence. I couldn't find any such prior accusations on algolia or web search.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32639125
Edit: Thanks for the reality check replies! Perhaps story submissions and discussions on this matter get flagged and die at a high rate.
He banned me, and I think I've never had an interaction with him.
I've seen people I follow mentioning these bans, but most just shrug.
A lot of tech folks seem to have a mindset of a 60s Soviet technocrat. "We shot a dog into space comrades, let's apply our engineering genius to all the social problems the stupid managers can't solve". Spoiler alert, it is pretty hard to govern hundreds of millions of people
But blocking links to Mastodon? That makes him leave? Like, uh, fine, but... maybe he could have not mocked us for pointing out the dysfunction weeks and weeks ago?
Between all the crypto implosions happening and this, wealthy Silicon Valley investor types and their hanger-ons are really having a "moment" these past few months. Sheesh.
“Hate speech” is left-wing code for “someone with an opposing point of view”.
Having those accounts unbanned, if nothing else, is a healthy sign.
What this thread is about though (banning outbound links to other platforms), not so much. That plain reeks of desperation.
And the list of accounts he banned were from a list left-wing/anarchist accounts given to him by known self-proclaimed fascists.
If you think that's healthy, you have problems.
Does hate speech exist? Yes. Are we in danger of overusing the term? Yes.
Also nice hyperbole you got there.
Also: while Kanye is clearly his own kind of category of crazy, what “other racists”?
I don’t know a single such case.
>
> I don’t know a single such case.
One example I remember reading about was Andrew Anglin [1], the founder of The Daily Stormer [2], a website that, to save you a click, Wikipedia describes as "an American far-right, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist, Islamophobic, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for a second genocide of Jews".
As his Wikipedia article [1] notes,
> Anglin was banned from Twitter in 2013, but was reinstated weeks after the site was acquired by Elon Musk in 2022.
You just lost a large group of potential customers. Brilliant marketing strategy.
Maybe if you sell flags that go on oversized pickups. About everyone else is a miss in that sort of stupidity.
However, blocking links to a competitor is pretty clear-cut anticompetitive behavior. Imagine AT&T refusing to serve Verizon's websites.
You're right that assuming success at Tesla/SpaceX indicated success at Twitter ended up being wrong.
But these "priors" are still very true. Tech companies are bloated, Elon sucking at running a social network doesn't change that fact
Once again, society will be left holding the rich sociopaths' bags and dealing with the externalities of their uncontrolled gambling.
Compare Instagram with Twitter.
On-prem is a good point though. I don’t know a lot about their core infra.
PG mocked those who thought we would end up here.
Just imagine the kind of damage that would ensue if for instance all of Twitters DMs became somehow public.
It's the sane thing to do.
> I don't think [Musk] realizes that the techniques that work for cars and rockets don't work in social media
When someone is incapable of building stuff or running a company, we (as a society, collectively) hand them shittons of money to be a VC.
I've met some incredibly smart narcissists, and you know what they use their smarts for? The same sort of continuous ego inflation that less smart narcissists do. Their smartness just makes things worse, because they're less likely to have the sort of comeuppance that leads to a moment of clarity.
I think it's a good idea as content is king, but they should have rolled this out after they had established an ability to monetize. Once people leave the platform it will be tough to get them back unless they offer a very lucrative comission split with creators.
If they were actually concerned with people fleeing why would they do something which is more likely to make creators leave?
you're asking this in a sub-thread about if Elon is smart or not? I thought the answer was obvious.
I don't know why someone who (self-diagnosed?) as having Asperger's thinks they'd be a good fit for leading a social media company, that feels like having a an amputee selling staircases [0]; but the rocket nerds I follow seem pretty convinced Musk genuinely knows actual rocket science.
[0] as in: it could work, but you'd not expect it by default
Even if you’re absolutely certain your goals and overall strategy are right a smart person would understand that something needs to change in the messaging and/or execution given the overwhelmingly negative feedback.
The answer seems more along the lines of, Twitter and its problems are very very different from Tesla/SpaceX, and while Elon may have been good at the latter, he has zero experience with the former.
That being said, not realizing the above I guess makes him partly not-smart, and I assume the shortsightedness was due to the inflated ego caused by his previous two successes.
Intelligence is overrated in leaders. Character, humility, principles, and discipline are far more valuable in avoiding huge mistakes.
What a startup, a market leader and a government organization need are distinct types of leadership. Sometimes there are prodigies who can do two of these. Musk did.
Smart + deficient in the ethics department is a recipe for disaster.